Comparing methods for glomerular filtration rate estimation.

IF 2 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-06-23 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2025.10057
Xiaoqian Zhu, Tariq Shafi, Keith C Norris, Jeannette Simino, Srishti Shrestha, Thomas H Mosley, Michael E Griswold, Seth T Lirette
{"title":"Comparing methods for glomerular filtration rate estimation.","authors":"Xiaoqian Zhu, Tariq Shafi, Keith C Norris, Jeannette Simino, Srishti Shrestha, Thomas H Mosley, Michael E Griswold, Seth T Lirette","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.10057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The glomerular filtration rate (GFR), estimated from serum creatinine (SCr), is widely used in clinical practice for kidney function assessment, but SCr-based equations are limited by non-GFR determinants and may introduce inaccuracies across racial groups. Few studies have evaluated whether advanced modeling techniques enhance their performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using multivariable fractional polynomials (MFP), generalized additive models (GAM), random forests (RF), and gradient boosted machines (GBM), we developed four SCr-based GFR-estimating equations in a pooled data set from four cohorts (<i>n</i> = 4665). Their performance was compared to that of the refitted linear regression-based 2021 CKD-EPI SCr equation using bias (median difference between measured GFR [mGFR] and estimated GFR [eGFR]), precision, and accuracy metrics (e.g., P10 and P30, percentage of eGFR within 10% and 30% of mGFR, respectively) in a pooled validation data set from three additional cohorts (<i>n</i> = 2215).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the validation data set, the greatest bias and lowest accuracy, were observed in Black individuals for all equations across subgroups defined by race, sex, age, and eGFR. The MFP and GAM equations performed similarly to the refitted CKD-EPI SCr equation, with slight improvements in P10 and P30 in subgroups including Black individuals and females. The GBM and RF equations demonstrated smaller biases, but lower accuracy compared to other equations. Generally, differences among equations were modest overall and across subgroups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that advanced methods provide limited improvement in SCr-based GFR estimation. Future research should focus on integrating novel biomarkers for GFR estimation and improving the feasibility of GFR measurement.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e148"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12305378/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The glomerular filtration rate (GFR), estimated from serum creatinine (SCr), is widely used in clinical practice for kidney function assessment, but SCr-based equations are limited by non-GFR determinants and may introduce inaccuracies across racial groups. Few studies have evaluated whether advanced modeling techniques enhance their performance.

Methods: Using multivariable fractional polynomials (MFP), generalized additive models (GAM), random forests (RF), and gradient boosted machines (GBM), we developed four SCr-based GFR-estimating equations in a pooled data set from four cohorts (n = 4665). Their performance was compared to that of the refitted linear regression-based 2021 CKD-EPI SCr equation using bias (median difference between measured GFR [mGFR] and estimated GFR [eGFR]), precision, and accuracy metrics (e.g., P10 and P30, percentage of eGFR within 10% and 30% of mGFR, respectively) in a pooled validation data set from three additional cohorts (n = 2215).

Results: In the validation data set, the greatest bias and lowest accuracy, were observed in Black individuals for all equations across subgroups defined by race, sex, age, and eGFR. The MFP and GAM equations performed similarly to the refitted CKD-EPI SCr equation, with slight improvements in P10 and P30 in subgroups including Black individuals and females. The GBM and RF equations demonstrated smaller biases, but lower accuracy compared to other equations. Generally, differences among equations were modest overall and across subgroups.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that advanced methods provide limited improvement in SCr-based GFR estimation. Future research should focus on integrating novel biomarkers for GFR estimation and improving the feasibility of GFR measurement.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

肾小球滤过率估算方法的比较。
背景:由血清肌酐(SCr)估算的肾小球滤过率(GFR)在临床实践中广泛用于肾功能评估,但基于肾小球滤过率的方程受到非GFR决定因素的限制,并且可能在种族群体中引入不准确性。很少有研究评估先进的建模技术是否能提高它们的性能。方法:利用多变量分数阶多项式(MFP)、广义加性模型(GAM)、随机森林(RF)和梯度增强机(GBM),在4个队列(n = 4665)的汇总数据集中建立了4个基于scr的gfr估计方程。将其性能与基于修正线性回归的2021 CKD-EPI SCr方程进行比较,使用来自另外三个队列(n = 2215)的合并验证数据集的偏差(测量GFR [mGFR]和估计GFR [eGFR]之间的中位数差)、精度和准确性指标(例如,P10和P30, eGFR在10%和30% mGFR内的百分比)。结果:在验证数据集中,在黑人个体中观察到由种族、性别、年龄和eGFR定义的所有亚组方程的最大偏差和最低准确性。MFP和GAM方程的表现与改装后的CKD-EPI SCr方程相似,在包括黑人和女性在内的亚组中P10和P30略有改善。与其他方程相比,GBM和RF方程显示出较小的偏差,但精度较低。总的来说,方程式之间的差异总体上和亚组之间是适度的。结论:我们的研究结果表明,先进的方法对基于scr的GFR估计的改善有限。未来的研究应着眼于整合新的生物标志物来估计GFR,并提高GFR测量的可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信